Modeling voluntary CAAT utilization decisions in auditing
Author:
B. Curtis Mary,A. Payne Elizabeth
Abstract
Purpose
– The authors aim to examine whether the well-established unified theory of acceptance and use of technology can be effectively adapted for use in an external audit setting and whether the re-specified model holds under different levels of budget pressure.
Design/methodology/approach
– This paper takes the form of a case study/questionnaire with Lisrel path modelling.
Findings
– Results support the re-specified model.
Research limitations/implications
– The model should aid audit research by providing a platform for new research to explore more specific solutions to technology reluctance. The authors extend general TAM research through additional exploration of the theory and impact of social influence, a determinant that has shown inconsistent tendencies in prior studies. The authors address several limitations in past TAM research including the use of student participants and self-selection bias.
Practical implications
– Firms must understand the implications of their policies and culture on the intention of audit teams to voluntarily utilize software. Technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of audit procedures, aid in the identification of fraud and lower litigation costs. Accounting firms have invested in the development of audit testing software and can only recoup these investments if the software is used.
Originality/value
– The study is the first to completely model the intention to use technology in an external audit engagement with consideration of budget influences.
Subject
Accounting,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference47 articles.
1. AICPA
(2002), Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99 – Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, New York, NY. 2. Anderson, J.C.
and
Gerbing, D.W.
(1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423. 3. Bedard, J.C.
,
Ettredge, M.L.
and
Johnstone, K.M.
(2006), “Adopting electronic audit workpaper systems: task analysis, transition, and learning issues, and auditor resistance”, Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research, Vol. 10, pp. 29-53. 4. Bedard, J.C.
,
Deis, D.R.
,
Curtis, M.B.
and
Jenkins, J.G.
(2008), “Risk monitoring and control in audit firms: a research synthesis”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 187-218. 5. Bedard, J.C.
,
Jackson, C.
,
Ettredge, M.L.
and
Johnstone, K.M.
(2003), “The effect of training on auditors' acceptance of an electronic work system”, International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 4, pp. 227-250.
Cited by
39 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|